20 seventies, and eighties. 68. With regard to the evidence offered in the public hearing, the Court heard the statements and expert opinions of the following people:47 a) Tita Radilla Martínez. Alleged victim proposed by the Inter-American Commission. She testified, among other aspects, on the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, the steps taken to locate his whereabouts, and the family situation after his alleged disappearance. b) Rosendo Radilla Martínez. Alleged victim proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. He testified, among other aspects, on what he knew regarding the alleged arrest of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco and the family situation after his alleged disappearance. c) Miguel Sarre. Attorney and university professor. Witness proposed by the InterAmerican Commission. He offered his expert opinion, among other aspects, on the criminal justice system of Mexico at the time the facts argued in the application occurred, the form of operation of the military criminal jurisdiction, and international human rights standards. B. Assessment of documentary evidence 70. In this case, as in others,48 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of those documents presented in a timely manner by the parties that were not contested or objected, or whose authenticity was not questioned. 71. Regarding the observations made by the State in reference to different documents presented by the representatives,49 the Court warns that they question the need to include 47 On July 2, 2009, the representatives informed the Court that Mr. Maximiliano Nava Martínez, a witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives “[c]ould not offer his testimony directly before the Tribunal, during the public hearing summoned,” because of his age and deterioration of the state of his health. 48 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 140; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 62, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 34. 49 The State mentioned that Recommendation 26/2001 issued by the National Human Rights Commission could “[b]e taken into consideration [only] in what refers to the disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco.” In that sense, it argued that “[s]ince the [mentioned] recommendation […] refers to other cases that have not yet been examined by the Commission through the individual petition system, it cannot be heard by the […] Court, [… the latter shall] abstain from using [that] evidence […] as grounds for any type of context.” On the other hand, the State considered it “[i]nappropriate to take into consideration any evidence that [would] prove Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco’s profile,” since “[t]he existence of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco was clear and that the way in which he led his daily life as a father, a member of a society, or in his work life was not in question […].” Additionally, the State asked that the Court dismiss the evidence offered by the petitioners “regarding an alleged psycho-social infringement” of the community where Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco lived since it considered that “there had not been any violation to Article 5 of the [American] Convention in [their] detriment.” That evidence refers to the following documents: a) Report on the psychosocial effects resulting from the forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla, Antillón, Ximena. Forced disappearance during the dirty war: individual, family, and community psychosocial impact. The forced disappearance of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco on Atoyac de Álvarez, Guerrero; b) Lira, Elizabeth. Psychosocial consequences of the political repression in Latin America. In: De la Corte, Luis, A. Blanco and J. M. Sabucedo (eds.) Psychology and Human Rights, Barcelona, Editorial Icaria Antrazyt, 2004; c) Center of Legal and Social Studies (CELS). Truth, justice, and mourning in public spaces and subjectivity. Report of the Human Rights situation in Argentina, chapter XII. Buenos Aires, 2000; and d) Mental Health Team of the Center of Legal and Social Studies (CELS). The reparation: legal and symbolic act. In: IIDH, Comprehensive Attention to the victims of torture in litigation proceedins. Psychosocial contributions. San José, IIDH, 2007.